Re: SCO & On-Line

At 03:35 PM 4/24/96 GMT, Nils.Myklebust@ccmail.telemax.no wrote: }> pfinkel@cbnews.cb.att.com (paul.d.finkel) writes: }> ... snip ... }> Secondly, a new client is interested in a system running on an Intel }> server. Does anyone have any experience with this combo: }> SCO/Compaq/On-LIne? Any inherent weaknesses? thing to be concerned }> about? } }We have been using this for a long time. SCO 3.2.4.2, Compaq Proliant 1500, }OnLine 7.10.UC1, c4gl 6.00.UE3. }It works reasonably well, but there are some extremely serious bugs in the engine }and the 4gl compiler that you have to know about and use workarounds. }We have started to move to SCO Openserver 5, OnLine 7.12.UC1 and c4gl 6.03.UC1 }Some bugs in the engine have been fixed. We haven't had the time yet to test }them all. }We don't yet know if the 4gl bugs have been fixed, but have reason to belive }they are. }If it's a new customer you have no real option but SCO 5 and the latest }OnLine/4gl for this. } }> Why this combination? I chose SCO in my belief that it is similiar to }> UNIX V4.2.3 running on NCR. }Well, I don't realy know about this, but SCO is still based on Unix V3.something }as far as I know. }We use SCO for price reasons, and the fact we can use standard PC server hardware. }Our customers like that a lot better than having to buy some strange specialised }Unix machine. You also generally have to pay a lot to get any significant better }performance from a Sun, HP, IBM or other machine than from the PC server/SCO }combination (see among others the latest TCP/C results for different databases }and computers). } }> I chose Compaq at client's request. }Compaq is one of the best alternatives for servers - possibly the best, but }in my opinion it's still more important that you have someone who realy knows }the ins and outs of SCO Unix. If you don't yourself you *need* to find someone. }If you don't you should expect your whole project to come tumbling down at you }very hard at some future time. SCO is not easy. (I don't know enough about other }Unix's to say if they are much better.) } }> There }> is also the possibility of using Win-NT, something I favor a lot less. }This of course depends on the application and development language. Generally }Informix is new to the NT arena yet, so it may be better to use SCO for this }reason alone. }My expectations is however that NT will be a much better alternative at some }later time. After all Microsoft know a lot about how to make things simple }and easy, while SCO seems to hardly have a clue about that. Installation, }administration++ is very hard even in their newest products. }But for now, clearly SCO. } }> Any thoughts, opinions, admonitions, suggestions or diatribes will be }> wholeheartedly consumed and digested. }> Please post and e-mail your reply. } }Nils.Myklebust@ccmail.telemax.no }NM Data AS, Postbox 9090, Gronland, 0133 Oslo, Norway }My opinions are those of my company } } } }